To what extent do we deserve the blame?

[Chaotic42]

Everyone wants nuclear power plants... just not in their back yard. Everyone knows this.

I want one. There's empty space right across from my subdivision and it's river adjacent. I'll get a shovel and help.

As for fission power using batteries, where will we get the materials to make the batteries? The opening of new mines for materials will be delayed by environmental lawsuits, and we all know how long it takes to get a nuke plant online in the US. What happens when a lithium mine collapses and people die? Do we stop mining lithium for six months and protest Big Lith?

To me the issue is pretty clear: It's the government that's getting in the way of progress in too many cases. Until we can start using some of our resources again, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

Your gas tax idea is pure insanity.

 

[bfdd]

huh? the gov't deserves 99% of the blame... they have complete control over who, where and how drilling is done... it barry wants to kick someone's ass http://www.cnbc.com/id/37567205 he should start at the top of his admin...

this is true for the most part, they have government inspectors that come by and make sure everything is kosher especially on huge projects like this. that said, that doesn't mean some shady wrench turner hid something from everyones view. Like I've said before, I bet if we peel everything back most the blame is going to fall on a contractor, not BP specifically.

 

[Daedalus685]

I want one. There's empty space right across from my subdivision and it's river adjacent. I'll get a shovel and help.

As for fission power using batteries, where will we get the materials to make the batteries? The opening of new mines for materials will be delayed by environmental lawsuits, and we all know how long it takes to get a nuke plant online in the US. What happens when a lithium mine collapses and people die? Do we stop mining lithium for six months and protest Big Lith?

To me the issue is pretty clear: It's the government that's getting in the way of progress in too many cases. Until we can start using some of our resources again, we're going to be in a lot of trouble.

Your gas tax idea is pure insanity.

Progress is not free. One cannot run blindly into a situation. It is a given that certain things are limited too much, but I would rather it be a touch slow than to allow a new global warming to start occurring because of our short sightedness.

Things like rare earth metals are recyclable, it s not quite the same thing as oil I can reclaim much of the materials from an modern battery once it wears out (the failure of the battery is often due to increased resistance, not lack of charge holding capability), it is far more difficult to turn my exhaust back into gasoline. Battery tech is not so far away from 'perfect' recyclability (that is where only mechanical failure results in a dead battery over time, not chemical changes).

Eventually we will mine all of the metal that we can freely get at without greatly hampering the environment, it would be prudent to create an economy based around the reuse and recirculation of that finite amount. By the end of the century it is perfectly feasible that mining for these components will no longer need to take place provided enough care is put into the initial thought and allocation of our resources.

We won't be able to entirely replace our fleet of gas powered cars without a massive influx of money and resources to create the cars/batteries. I suppose folks are waiting for technology to get to a point were batteries last forever and can be charged and discharged at your leisure... but without money that will not happen as quick as I'd like.

 

[Rebel44]

Spending 200% of any new income is an established government precedent here.

You answered your own question - Europeans have a lower standard of living than do Americans. You are less likely to own an automobile (or a color television), drive fewer miles, live in smaller homes, spend less on disposable consumer goods. You live where government says you may live, travel where government decides to provide mass transit, and government spends more of your income for you. Frankly it's not a direction in which I am eager to travel.

STFU about europe if you dont know what you are talking about....

Living standart here is similar to that in USA.

Whats wrong with family which have "only" 2 cars if they dont need more?
wtf? about only place where you find monochrome TV is museum...
Driving is boring - why would i drive more than I need to?
Housing is IMO pretty good (we paid 50K € for 2500 square foot house with garden, pool etc. about 10 years ago).
Disposable income is diferent in various countries in EU - in some places its less (like where I live) in some places its more than USA.
We live where we want to live (as long as we can afford it/find job there).
We travel where we want to (as long as you can affor it).
20% income tax (I have average income) is not that bad, 12% for social and healts insurance is more than I like but it have some advantages compared to health system in USA, 19% VAT sux - with that I agree.
We have much much less drug and gang related crimes here.

Oh and our (Czech Republic) Debt-to GDP-ratio is only around 37%, USA is already over 90% :thumbsdown:

Sorry for little OT.

 

[Darwin333]

Progress is not free. One cannot run blindly into a situation. It is a given that certain things are limited too much, but I would rather it be a touch slow than to allow a new global warming to start occurring because of our short sightedness.

Things like rare earth metals are recyclable, it s not quite the same thing as oil I can reclaim much of the materials from an modern battery once it wears out (the failure of the battery is often due to increased resistance, not lack of charge holding capability), it is far more difficult to turn my exhaust back into gasoline. Battery tech is not so far away from 'perfect' recyclability (that is where only mechanical failure results in a dead battery over time, not chemical changes).

Eventually we will mine all of the metal that we can freely get at without greatly hampering the environment, it would be prudent to create an economy based around the reuse and recirculation of that finite amount. By the end of the century it is perfectly feasible that mining for these components will no longer need to take place provided enough care is put into the initial thought and allocation of our resources.

We won't be able to entirely replace our fleet of gas powered cars without a massive influx of money and resources to create the cars/batteries. I suppose folks are waiting for technology to get to a point were batteries last forever and can be charged and discharged at your leisure... but without money that will not happen as quick as I'd like.

Or the electricity to charge them.... Or the grid to deliver a fuckton more electricity than it currently does...

The perfect battery could be invented today and a very cheap way to convert current gas engines to EVs and we still can't do it because of our current infrastructure. Hell, some parts of the country can barely keep up with current demand but all we need is a new battery and we can switch from petroleum based transportation fuel to electrical???

Don't get me wrong, I think this is the direction we need to be moving in but who cares about the batteries if we can't charge them due to BOTH the lack of electrical generation and the lack of ability to deliver it even if we had it?

 

[Daedalus685]

Our current grid could transport the power (provided most charging was during non peak hours) now. We would likely need more electricity (though you underestimate how much production of gas consumes now) but we always need more electricity and will regardless.

We need to invest in more power production, places need to catch up, but we are not i such a sorry state right now (at least not in Ontario, I don't know what the power supply is like in the USA).

The power storage is by far the greatest hurdle, and it is not as high as folks think.


Again, this may be far worse off in places I don't work in... But even so the cost is not insurmountable.. it needs to be done anyway.

 

[bfdd]

Our current grid could transport the power (provided most charging was during non peak hours) now. We would likely need more electricity (though you underestimate how much production of gas consumes now) but we always need more electricity and will regardless.

We need to invest in more power production, places need to catch up, but we are not i such a sorry state right now (at least not in Ontario, I don't know what the power supply is like in the USA).

The power storage is by far the greatest hurdle, and it is not as high as folks think.

It does take a lot of electricity to produce gasoline, you're right there. There's an interesting thing these companies do though with their refineries, they make their own electricity. I've worked at quite a few refineries that supply their own electricity AND the areas around them.

 

[Daedalus685]

It does take a lot of electricity to produce gasoline, you're right there. There's an interesting thing these companies do though with their refineries, they make their own electricity. I've worked at quite a few refineries that supply their own electricity AND the areas around them.

Aye, the oil sands in Alberta are some of the keenest folk in search of nuclear power.


It is not an overnight process, but the limitations are largely will, not technical. As far as cars go the largest problem is competing on range (both in the aspect of full charge range and time to charge at a rest stop) not actually powering the vehicles. In fact, there is no reason the cars could not be charged from a solar powered station attached to your garage, centralized power would be a silly way to go about powering an inherently decentralized system. Even without such augmentation a slow charge overnight on the grid would allow the vast majority of folks to drive their morning commute.

 

[lord_emperor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Gogo!

 

[werepossum]

STFU about europe if you dont know what you are talking about....

Living standart here is similar to that in USA.

Whats wrong with family which have "only" 2 cars if they dont need more?
wtf? about only place where you find monochrome TV is museum...
Driving is boring - why would i drive more than I need to?
Housing is IMO pretty good (we paid 50K € for 2500 square foot house with garden, pool etc. about 10 years ago).
Disposable income is diferent in various countries in EU - in some places its less (like where I live) in some places its more than USA.
We live where we want to live (as long as we can afford it/find job there).
We travel where we want to (as long as you can affor it).
20% income tax (I have average income) is not that bad, 12% for social and healts insurance is more than I like but it have some advantages compared to health system in USA, 19% VAT sux - with that I agree.
We have much much less drug and gang related crimes here.

Oh and our (Czech Republic) Debt-to GDP-ratio is only around 37%, USA is already over 90% :thumbsdown:

Sorry for little OT.

Czech Republic is free of most of the insanity of European socialism, agreed. But if the family has two drivers then it matters not how many cars they own, as the miles driven will be the same.

Darwin, much as I hate to agree with Daedalus our grid could handle quite a bit more off-peak production. The grid and production have to be sized for the peak, which around here is 2 - 5 PM Central Time. At night it's not unusual to find more than 75% excess capacity. A lot of water that could be used to generate power is simply spilled (not completely bad as that is warmer than generation water) and a lot of generation is idled or taken off line where practical. Although TVA does something cool - it uses some excess electricity from plants that are not easily taken off line (such as coal boilers) and uses it to pump water from the river/flow-through reservoirs to man-made lakes in the mountains. Then during peak it spills that water through generation plants to make electricity. It's a net energy loss but a net resource savings, as the energy consumed would otherwise just be waste heat.

We're surrounded by nuclear plants and have no complaints. I'd like to have even more - especially those Canadian-designed plants that run on non-enriched uranium - but TVA, being a quasi-governmental agency, is not allowed to sell electricity on the open market.

 

[rudder]

I changed my mind from an earlier statement laying 75% of the blame on BP. For a company that was making billions in profits... they cut too many corners. I now am confident in saying they are responsible for 95% of the spill... the remaining 5% is for the government regulators asleep at the wheel.

http://www.wwl.com/BP-engineer-called-doomed-rig-a--nightmare-well-/7463053

 

[ebaycj]

Sadly we are probably a good 30-50 years away from a commerical Fusion reactor

One wish in my life is to see a commercial fusion reactor running.

What if it was a Government fusion reactor running?

 

[ebaycj]

and the gov't hugely regulates that your tires conform to x and your airbags and bumpers and door braces conform to y... things that 'everybody knows' make the cars safer... why didn't the gov't make them drill a relief hole when they drilled the primary? other countries do...

and even i am having a little trouble believing that you really equate the two situations... but since the gov't is willing to let 40k people a year die in cars then maybe it's right that they let a couple barrels of oil spew now and then...

The government regulates airbags. But who gets sued if an airbag fails to deploy and kills someone who would have otherwise lived?

Here's a hint: it's not the government.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I'll be sure to tell all of the progressive liberals that I work with how you feel.... /sigh

"progressives" have had nothing to do with the state of the US nuclear industry... an accident occurred and since people are stupid they ran with it. It sure wasn't the average environmental progressive that lobbied for more coal being that it is "safer." People don't understand radiation, this is absolutely not limited to the left or right.

It is also not the only alternative... at all...

Very true, but as of today nuclear fission is the only tech that can sustain the bulk of our power needs. Unfortunately, our nuclear stockpiles of material that can be used is getting low (IIRC, I read something about that a month or so ago).

 

[Darwin333]

Very true, but as of today nuclear fission is the only tech that can sustain the bulk of our power needs. Unfortunately, our nuclear stockpiles of material that can be used is getting low (IIRC, I read something about that a month or so ago).

I watched an interesting video about Thorium reactors. Granted, I know dickall about nuclear engineering so it could very well be a bunch of bullshit and I wouldn't know any better but if what they are saying is feasible it could be game changing. We evidently have a ton of thorium all over the place (one claim was made that we waste 13 times the energy from burning coal than extracting the thorium and using it), it is supposedly kind of "self regulating", much smaller than a conventional nuke plant and doesn't make material that is useful in weapons. They had a thorium reactor running for a while back in the 60's but as I said, the technology didn't help the weapons making side of the nuclear industry at the time so it was never funded very well.

Definitely an interesting watch, would like to hear what others who know more on the subject think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8&feature=player_embedded